The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES)<\/a> is a 32-item psychometric instrument developed by Carolyn MacCann<\/a> and colleagues (2025) to comprehensively operationalize and quantify the diverse behavioral, cognitive, and communicative strategies individuals employ to modulate the affective states of other people\u2014a process termed extrinsic or interpersonal emotion regulation (interpersonal emotion regulation<\/a>). Synthesizing James J. Gross’s<\/a> (1998) classic modal\/process model of intrapersonal emotion regulation with Karen Niven et al.\u2019s<\/a> (2009) taxonomy of controlled extrinsic affective interventions, the ROES captures eight distinct regulatory strategies: Expressive Suppression, Downward Social Comparison, Humor, Distraction, Direct Action, Cognitive Reframing, Valuing, and Receptive Listening. Across a four-study validation design comprising two large adult cohorts from English-speaking nations (spanning young adulthood to late senescence, ages 18\u201376), the scale underwent rigorous item-content sorting by independent experts, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n The instrument utilizes a 6-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree<\/em>) to 6 (Strongly agree<\/em>), structured evenly with four items allocated to each of the eight subscales. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust structural validity, showing excellent confirmatory fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .951, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .039, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = .055). Internal consistency reliability is strong across waves, with subscale Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients ranging from .78 to .90 in Wave 1 and .75 to .92 in Wave 2. Three-week test-retest coefficients demonstrate solid temporal stability, ranging from .59 to .80, with half exceeding .70. Construct validity is evidenced through theoretical divergence from HEXACO and Dark Triad personality dimensions, convergent associations with preexisting interpersonal emotion management tools, and significant criterion-related prediction of regulator subjective well-being, target emotional states, and interpersonal relationship quality. High-engagement strategies\u2014most prominently Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening\u2014emerge as the primary predictors of constructive social and affective outcomes, establishing the ROES as a foundational assessment tool for social, personality, organizational, and clinical psychology research<\/span>.<\/p>\n Interpersonal Emotion Regulation, Extrinsic Emotion Regulation, Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale, Cognitive Reframing, Valuing, Receptive Listening, Expressive Suppression, Downward Social Comparison, Direct Action, Humor, Emotional Assessment, Psychometrics<\/p>\n The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES) was designed, validated, and published through a multinational research collaboration across psychological and behavioral sciences departments:<\/p>\n Human survival and psychological health depend intrinsically on the quality of interpersonal bonds. Throughout everyday human life, individuals constantly act as social regulation agents for their romantic partners, children, friends, colleagues, and clients. While decades of psychometric scholarship have focused predominantly on intrinsic<\/em> emotion regulation\u2014the internal strategies individuals deploy to adjust their own felt emotions (Gross, 1998<\/a>)\u2014substantially less empirical attention was historically directed toward extrinsic<\/em> or interpersonal<\/em> emotion regulation (IER). The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES) was developed to resolve this psychometric imbalance by providing a fine-grained, psychometrically rigorous, and structurally comprehensive measurement model of the behavioral and cognitive tactics people use when attempting to alter the emotional states of others.<\/p>\n Prior measurement devices in this field, such as the Emotion Regulation of Others and Self scale (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) or interpersonal subscales within emotional intelligence measures, often collapsed multiple distinct interpersonal behaviors into broad binary classifications, such as affect-improving versus affect-worsening strategies, or relied on generalized situation vignettes. Such broad categorizations obscure critical behavioral variations. For instance, attempting to improve a friend’s mood through instrumental problem-solving (Direct Action<\/a>) represents a qualitatively distinct psychological mechanism compared to providing an unconditional relational affirmation (Valuing<\/a>), distractively redirecting attention (Distraction<\/a>), or prompting cognitive reframing (Cognitive Reframing<\/a>). The ROES was conceived to isolate and differentiate eight unique behavioral pathways within extrinsic emotion regulation, offering researchers and practitioners an analytical tool with superior diagnostic granularity.<\/p>\n In applied and clinical environments, the ROES serves multiple critical functions:<\/p>\n The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale operationalizes extrinsic emotion regulation as a multidimensional construct comprising eight explicit strategies. Each strategy captures a distinct behavioral orientation toward an emotional target\u2019s situation, cognition, or affective expression:<\/p>\n Expressive Suppression in an extrinsic context involves advising or pressuring the target individual to conceal, inhibit, or modify their outward emotional expressions (e.g., facial expressions, vocal weeping, or behavioral manifestations of distress). Items reflect attempts to stop the other person from visibly displaying negative emotions (e.g., asking them to “put a brave face on” or not to cry or frown). Unlike intrinsic suppression, which entails internal self-control, extrinsic suppression functions as an interpersonal directive that often signals social invalidation, emotional discomfort on the part of the regulator, or an attempt to terminate the emotional display to avoid interpersonal awkwardness.<\/p>\n Downward Social Comparison entails prompting the target individual to contrast their present adversity with the harsher circumstances of less fortunate people. The regulator uses this strategy to contextualize the problem, encouraging the target to perceive their own hardships as relatively minor or bearable (e.g., asserting that “things could be a lot worse” or highlighting individuals confronting greater tragedies). While occasionally aimed at cultivating gratitude or perspective, this strategy risks minimizing the target’s authentic distress if deployed without empathy.<\/p>\n The Humor strategy involves the strategic introduction of comical, witty, lighthearted, or playful stimuli into the interaction to alleviate emotional tension and provoke positive affective states (e.g., smiling, laughter). Regulators deploy humor to de-escalate acute autonomic arousal, shift conversational valence, and introduce levity. In contrast to hostile or sarcastic humor, the items in the ROES reflect prosocial, affiliative, or self-effacing humor intended to elevate the target’s mood.<\/p>\n Extrinsic Distraction represents an attentional deployment tactic wherein the regulator actively steers the target\u2019s focus away from the distressing event or emotion toward neutral or emotionally positive external tasks, conversational topics, or environmental stimuli. By suggesting alternative activities or introducing pleasant conversational divergences, the regulator attempts to disrupt rumination and temporarily unburden the target’s cognitive capacity from emotionally distressing themes.<\/p>\n Direct Action reflects tangible, instrumental, and problem-focused interventions wherein the regulator directly intervenes to modify, resolve, or manage the objective circumstances causing the target’s emotional upheaval. Rather than focusing solely on the target’s internal appraisals or physiological arousal, the regulator actively seeks solutions, rectifies errors, or alters the external environment to eliminate the root cause of the emotional challenge.<\/p>\n Cognitive Reframing (the extrinsic counterpart to cognitive reappraisal) involves collaborative communication aimed at modifying how the target interprets, appraises, or contextualizes their stressful situation. Regulators help the target explore alternative viewpoints, identify constructive meanings, re-evaluate underlying catastrophic assumptions, or recognize silver linings. This high-engagement strategy preserves target agency while facilitating profound alterations in subjective emotional experience.<\/p>\n Valuing constitutes an explicit, affirming relational strategy wherein the regulator directly conveys affection, deep appreciation, interpersonal worth, and unconditional support to the target. By telling the individual that they are deeply cared for, vital, and treasured, the regulator bolsters the target’s self-esteem and relational security. Empirical findings establish Valuing as the single most potent predictor of interpersonal relationship satisfaction, target affective relief, and regulator subjective well-being among all eight subscales.<\/p>\n Receptive Listening embodies supportive, nonjudgmental, and validating presence. The regulator creates a safe interpersonal container that allows the target to articulate their emotional pain, vent frustration, and speak openly about their problems without interruption, unsolicited advice, or immediate redirection. By bearing witness to the target’s distress and listening attentively, the regulator communicates profound empathy and emotional validation.<\/p>\n The ROES is anchored in the theoretical integration of two foundational paradigms in affective science: James J. Gross’s (1998)<\/a> Process Model of Emotion Regulation<\/strong> and Karen Niven et al.\u2019s (2009)<\/a> Taxonomy of Extrinsic Emotion Regulation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Gross\u2019s modal model conceptualizes emotion generation along a temporal timeline: a situation occurs, is attended to, is appraised, and subsequently generates experiential, behavioral, and physiological emotional responses. Within intrinsic regulation, individuals manage emotions across five primary points of intervention:<\/p>\n The authors of the ROES systematically mapped these theoretical nodes onto the interpersonal sphere, recognizing that social partners routinely intervene at each of these identical generative phases:<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the scale incorporates Niven et al.\u2019s (2009) taxonomy of extrinsic affect regulation, which posited that extrinsic efforts fall into deliberate affect-improving or affect-worsening intentions, structured further by whether the tactics engage relational links or problem features. MacCann et al. (2025) expanded this framework to demonstrate that interpersonal emotion regulation operates on a continuum of interpersonal engagement<\/em>. Strategies such as Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening represent high-engagement processes that demand emotional vulnerability, active listening, and relational investment. In contrast, Expressive Suppression and superficial Distraction often reflect low-engagement, distancing tactics that minimize the regulator\u2019s own discomfort at the expense of genuine emotional connection.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the ROES was established across four independent studies involving rigorous content, structural, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related evaluations:<\/p>\n Development initiated with an extensive item generation pool reflecting every strategic node across the Gross (1998) and Niven et al. (2009) models. Eight independent psychological researchers conducted formal content-sorting tasks, mapping candidate items against clear conceptual definitions. Items exhibiting ambiguity, multidimensional cross-loadings, or poor inter-rater agreement were eliminated, leaving 96 candidate items that were subsequently refined to 32 items.<\/p>\n Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested competing theoretical structures against one another (including unidimensional models, hierarchical models, and higher-order engagement models). The distinct eight-factor model demonstrated superior structural fit over all alternative representations (see Factor Analysis section), confirming that respondents treat these eight strategies as distinct behavioral options rather than an undifferentiated generalized tendency to assist others.<\/p>\n The ROES demonstrates predictable, theoretically coherent convergent validity coefficients with existing interpersonal scales, including the Emotion Regulation of Others and Self (EROS; Niven et al., 2011) and interpersonal emotional intelligence subscales (e.g., Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test [MSCEIT] emotion management branches). High-engagement ROES subscales correlate positively with perspective taking, empathy, and social competence.<\/p>\n Discriminant validity was established against comprehensive personality inventories, including the broad traits of the HEXACO model<\/a> (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience) and the Dark Triad<\/a> (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy). Correlations between the eight ROES strategies and broad personality dimensions were low-to-moderate, indicating that the ROES does not merely reflect basic personality dispositions but captures distinct strategic interpersonal behaviors. As theoretically anticipated, Expressive Suppression exhibited small positive associations with Machiavellianism and low Agreeableness, whereas Valuing and Receptive Listening demonstrated strong positive associations with HEXACO Agreeableness and Emotionality.<\/p>\n The ROES predicts meaningful variance in critical psychological and relational criteria:<\/p>\n The psychometric reliability of the ROES was assessed across multiple large-scale adult samples, demonstrating robust internal consistency and temporal stability:<\/p>\n Across validation waves, each of the eight 4-item subscales demonstrated high internal consistency reliability, routinely exceeding standard psychometric thresholds (Cronbach’s $\\alpha ge .70$<\/span>):<\/p>\n Test-retest reliability was evaluated over a three-week interval among a non-clinical adult subsample. Temporal stability coefficients ($r_{tt}$<\/span>) ranged from .59 to .80<\/strong> across the eight strategies:<\/p>\n The structural dimensionality of the ROES was verified through a combined exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methodology across independent participant splits.<\/p>\n In the initial psychometric phase, the 96-item candidate pool was subjected to exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation (Promax) to allow natural correlations among interpersonal regulatory dimensions. Examination of the scree plot, eigenvalues ($> 1.0$<\/span>), and parallel analysis conclusively supported an eight-factor solution. Item retention adhered to strict, pre-registered psychometric criteria:<\/p>\n Through iterative reduction, exactly four items per construct were retained, yielding the final 32-item instrument.<\/p>\n The derived eight-factor measurement model was tested on an independent replication sample using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). The eight-factor model demonstrated an outstanding fit to the observed empirical data:<\/p>\n The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES) is a self-report psychological instrument designed for adult populations. Its structural specifications, administration guidelines, and scoring criteria are summarized below:<\/p>\n The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES) was officially published in 2025<\/strong> in the peer-reviewed journal Emotion<\/em> by the American Psychological Association (APA). In accordance with the authors’ open-science principles, the ROES is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)<\/a>.<\/p>\n The theoretical foundations, construction, and validation of the ROES are documented in the following scientific literature:<\/p>\n Instructions:<\/strong> Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements, describing how you typically act when trying to regulate the emotions of others. Use the scale below:<\/p>\n The Regulating Others\u2019 Emotions Scale (ROES) is a 32-item psychometric assessment developed by MacCann et al. (2025) measuring eight interpersonal emotion regulation strategies, including Valuing, Cognitive Reframing, and Receptive Listening.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[847,1850,30],"tags":[24694,1056,12637,6,24692,259,24693],"class_list":["post-8260","psych_scale","type-psych_scale","status-publish","hentry","category-emotion-regulation","category-interpersonal-relationships","category-psychological-scales","tag-cognitive-reframing","tag-emotion-regulation","tag-interpersonal-relationships","tag-psychometrics","tag-roes","tag-social-psychology","tag-valuing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/8260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_scale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/8260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Keywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Expressive Suppression<\/h3>\n
2. Downward Social Comparison<\/h3>\n
3. Humor<\/h3>\n
4. Distraction<\/h3>\n
5. Direct Action<\/h3>\n
6. Cognitive Reframing<\/h3>\n
7. Valuing<\/h3>\n
8. Receptive Listening<\/h3>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Content and Face Validity<\/h3>\n
Structural and Construct Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency Reliability<\/h3>\n
\n
Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)<\/h3>\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/h3>\n
\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n 1 = Strongly disagree<\/code>
\n 2 = Disagree<\/code>
\n 3 = Somewhat disagree<\/code>
\n 4 = Somewhat agree<\/code>
\n 5 = Agree<\/code>
\n 6 = Strongly agree<\/code>\n <\/li>\n\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
\n 1 = Strongly disagree<\/span>
\n 2 = Disagree<\/span>
\n 3 = Somewhat disagree<\/span>
\n 4 = Somewhat agree<\/span>
\n 5 = Agree<\/span>
\n 6 = Strongly agree<\/span>\n <\/div>\nExpressive suppression<\/h3>\n
\n
Downward social comparison<\/h3>\n
\n
Humor<\/h3>\n
\n
Distraction<\/h3>\n
\n
Direct action<\/h3>\n
\n
Cognitive reframing<\/h3>\n
\n
Valuing<\/h3>\n
\n
Receptive listening<\/h3>\n
\n